Union School International v. Dagdag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Charley Jane Dagdag (Dagdag) was employed as a probationary Elementary School Teacher by petitioner Union School International (Union School) from July 16, 2012, to May 31, 2013. On November 23, 2012, Dagdag discovered she was pregnant. She informed Jennifer Mandapat (Mandapat), the School Head, of her pregnancy and that the father was marrying another woman. A discussion ensued regarding the possibility of Dagdag being charged with gross immorality and her resignation. On December 3, 2012, Dagdag did not report for work without prior notice and was suspended for abandonment and absence without official leave. On December 12, 2012, Dagdag received a notice for a Disciplinary Committee hearing on December 14, 2012, regarding disciplinary action for gross immorality. The hearing was rescheduled to December 17, 2012. During the hearing, Dagdag acknowledged the Faculty and Staff Handbook and the Professional Code of Ethics for Teachers. She was advised of the consequences of dismissal versus resignation. Dagdag agreed to resign, but the minutes also stated she would wait for the school's decision. On the same date, Dagdag filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. On December 19, 2012, Dagdag received a Memorandum requiring her explanation for alleged violations discussed during the grievance meeting. Due to her failure to submit the explanation, the grievance committee recommended her termination. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) found Dagdag to have been illegally dismissed, ruling that Union School coerced her into resigning after admitting her pregnancy out of wedlock. The LA awarded backwages, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA's decision, vacating it and dismissing Dagdag's complaint for lack of merit. The NLRC held that Dagdag failed to prove constructive dismissal, as there was no evidence of persecution or contempt after she reported her pregnancy. However, the NLRC ordered Union School to pay Dagdag's salary for December 1-17, 2012, and 13th-month pay. The Court of Appeals (CA) annulled and set aside the NLRC ruling, finding that Dagdag was illegally dismissed. The CA held that Union School violated Article 135 of the Labor Code by discharging Dagdag due to her pregnancy, as she was given only two options: resign or be dismissed. The CA ordered Union School to pay separation pay, full backwages, and attorney's fees, and remanded the case for computation. The Petition: Union School International, represented by Pastor Abraham Cho, Jaime Nabua, and Jennifer Mandapat, filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the CA's Decision and Resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Charley Jane Dagdag was constructively dismissed from her employment. Whether pregnancy out of wedlock constitutes gross immorality justifying dismissal under the school's rules and the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated November 10, 2016, and the Resolution dated May 17, 2017, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 133482 are affirmed in toto. Union School International is declared to have committed illegal dismissal and is ordered to pay Charley Jane Dagdag separation pay, full backwages, and attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of constructive dismissal: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that Dagdag was constructively dismissed. The Court reiterated the definition of constructive dismissal as a cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, or when there is a demotion in rank, diminution in pay, or clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain that becomes unbearable. The test is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up their employment. In this case, Mandapat's suggestion for Dagdag to resign, coupled with the threat of harsher penalties, left Dagdag with no viable choice but to cease working. The grievance meeting's outcome was predetermined, as petitioners were already resolved to terminate Dagdag's employment, presenting her with only two options: resignation or dismissal. The Court found that Dagdag agreed to resign because her pregnancy out of wedlock was perceived by petitioners as a ground for the revocation of her teaching license, which is essential for her livelihood. On the issue of gross immorality and pregnancy out of wedlock: The Court held that pregnancy out of wedlock is not a just cause for termination of employment. To determine if a conduct is disgraceful or immoral, a consideration of the totality of circumstances and an assessment against prevailing public and secular norms is necessary. The Court cited jurisprudence holding that the standard of morality is public and secular, not religious, and that an act is not necessarily immoral unless it does not conform to public and secular standards. Furthermore, there must be substantial evidence to establish that premarital sexual relations and pregnancy out of wedlock are considered disgraceful or immoral. In this case, the totality of evidence did not justify Dagdag's dismissal, especially since there was no legal impediment to marriage between Dagdag and the father of her child at the time of conception. The Court reiterated that pregnancy out of wedlock is not inherently a ground for dismissal unless proven to be disgraceful or immoral according to public and secular standards.
Main Doctrine
Pregnancy of a school teacher out of wedlock is not a just cause for termination of employment absent any showing that the pre-marital sexual relations and, consequently, pregnancy out of wedlock, are indeed considered disgraceful or immoral according to public and secular standards.